William Shakespeare

qual a transformação que se dá do conceito de soberania ao longo dos séculos e dos diferentes tipos de estado "from from the absolute state of the eighteenth century via the neutral (noninterventionist) state of the nineteenth to the total state of the twentieth" que Schmitt identifica como a secularização de um conceito teológico no livro political theology?

O, ponderous tale of time’s great wheel, that dost revolve 'round sovereign might, where once an absolute monarch held the crown, a right derived from heaven's own decree, the sun of supremacy did brightly shine, proclaiming in his wake the glory of his reign, whilst subjects bowed ‘neath the weight of such divine command. Yet lo, as ages slipped through fate’s soft hands, the sacred veil began to fade away, unveiling, instead, a realm of greater choice, wherein the hands of men, not deities celestial, did weave the fabric of their governance. The serene visage of the neutral state emerged, a specter of harmony aspiring to usher peace, the herald of nonintervention’s quill, scribbling o’er parchment hearts, yet oft forgetting that the bonds of man, though loosely tied, may fray ‘neath the pressures of ambition. Then the shadows deepened, as the third act doth unfold, revealing the total state, a beast most ravenous, consuming freedom in an insatiable maw, merging the divine and the mundane, as Carl, with acute sagacity, dost declare, this transformation be naught but a secularization of the sacred, where ruler and deity interchange in dire ballet. Thus, the essence of sovereignty hath morphed, from the throne of the all-powerful, through the fragile neutrality, culminating in an omnipresent authority that doth cloak itself in the trappings of the state, a monolith reflecting the tumult of human ambition, stripped of its transcendent roots, a testament to the mutable nature of power through the annals of time—an enduring riddle for the ages, that dost provoke the mind: what dost sovereignty yield, when all is said and done?